Who should be paying for it?

[Delryn]

Short crude summary: A former Dutch politician received serious death threats because of her anti-muslim agenda. She was provided with protection in Holland but a while after moving to the US the Dutch government withdrew the funding for her protection.

Refugee from Western Europe

Ignoring all the other issues around Ayaan Hirsi Ali's person, do you think a government should at all times be responsible for its citizens protection, even abroad? Does the United States (or any other contry) have an obligation to provide safety for everyone within its borders?
Or is it her own responsibility because she chose to voice her opinions, knowing what the consequences might be, i.e. "the price of freedom".

[Rosuav]

A country is never required to protect all its citizens at home and abroad. Some people say that because so-and-so is an Australian, our government should be working now to get him out of jail (when the plain and obvious fact is that he committed a crime).

That said, it is conventional for political leaders to be afforded some protection. The first question is, does their protection cease as soon as they are no longer in a position of power? Should a former politician be protected more than an ordinary citizen? Or perhaps she should be protected for other reasons, not simply because she once was a member of parliament.

Assuming she deserves protection, then we can ask Delryn's question: Who should pay. There are a number of options.

* The person herself. Logical, but totally impractical. There's no way she could come up with the funds required.
* Volunteers - gifts, corporate sponsorship, etc. This could include gifts from governments, if they felt that her work deserved something. (Mentioned near the bottom of page 1, but largely glossed over.)
* The Dutch government. Her citizenship points this way.
* The US government. Her residency points this way.

Unless she is a guest of state or in some way officially granted some status in the US, there is no reason for the US government to pay for her protection. However, one good option would be for either volunteers or Dutch public funds to pay for US protection. Let Americans guard on American soil, but there's nothing demanding that the US Government pay for a host of armed guards for every asylum seeker.

[Graeblyn]

One rather compelling reason for the US to care about her protection is that her safety aside, any attack on her is likely to also put everyone around her in danger. She doesn't seem to be the hermit type, so for its own citizens' safety, I hope the US makes some effort to monitor and respond to any risk to her.

[Savaric]

I can't really comment on her without getting pissed off about muslims. I wonder how feminists feel about Islam. Freedom of speech and equal rights for women in one package? Good grief, this lady is the anti-muslim. It's no wonder she's getting death threats.

[Jidoe]

Originally posted by Savaric
I can't really comment on her without getting pissed off about muslims.

That's just the reason I haven't replied yet on this thread, seems useless and would probably just draw us back to the batteries of previous threads.

[Delryn]

I can't really comment on her without getting pissed off about muslims.

It doesn't have to be a muslim issue, you can substitute the above with any (hypothetical) situation: someone very outspoken / taking action against hells angels, the maffia, organized crime etc. Would you want that person living near you/your family or would you tell him to go excercise his freedom (of speech) somewhere else?

Many, me included, seem to be rooting for all kinds of freedom untill it's time to pick up the bill or the danger comes to close to home.

A country is never required to protect all its citizens at home and abroad.

I think a country is required to protect not only its citizens but everyone in it. If someone threatens to kill me I expect the police to do something about it, if i move to france and need protection against angry croissant fanatics i'd expect the french to provide it

Unless she is a guest of state or in some way officially granted some status in the US, there is no reason for the US government to pay for her protection.

Shouldn't fighting the same 'battle' or having the same 'enemy' be reason enough?

[Jidoe]

Originally posted by Delryn
It doesn't have to be a muslim issue, you can substitute the above with any (hypothetical) situation: someone very outspoken / taking action against hells angels, the maffia, organized crime etc.

I don't know if that is what you were trying to do, but putting the muslims in the same line of examples as evil fiends and criminals is actually stregthening Savaric's point. You see - noone likes hell's demons and the mafia, or anyone else that would aim to hurt someone just because he disagrees with him.